<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"[It's] time we return to the type of fiscal discipline that democrats brought to Washington in the 90′s when democrats in the Congress and White House balanced the budget and used the surplus to do what Mr. President? To pay down the debt," Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) said on the Senate floor today. </div></div>

How funny is THAT! (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/01/harry_reid_return_to_type_of_fiscal_discipline_und er_the_democrats.html)

Now, according to the Obama regime, the combined deficit in the 1990's while the democrooks set the budget was ($1,402.8B) over 6 years ... or ($233.8B) per year from 1990 through 1995.

From 1996 through 2007, when the reckless republichickens ran the budget it was ($1,245.69B) ... or an average of ($103.8B) per year.

For our leftist brethren and sistren ... which is worse ... ($233.8B) or ($103.8B) per year?

Next up we have the 2008 through 2011 era when the democrooks ran the budget again. During those 4 years they deficit amounted to ($4,809.9B) ... or ($1,202.5B) per year.

In closing, this shows that the earlier democrook regime ran deficits averaging <span style='font-size: 11pt'>225%</span> of what the following (R) congress averaged.

Not to be outdone, the next democrook congress ran deficits averaging <span style='font-size: 17pt'>1,158%</span> or the preceding (R) congress ... and even <span style='font-size: 14pt'>514.3%</span> higher than the last democrook congress.

This is where the cabal insists that just because these are the facts doesn't prove a thing.

Soflasnapper

07-02-2011, 05:04 PM

The key things were set in place early on by the Democrats in majority of both houses of Congress even before Clinton took office.

As the class may recall, it was the Democratic majorities in Congress during the GHW Bush administration that imposed hard caps on domestic discretionary spending, and imposed pay-go discipline for all new spending or taxing proposals, AND bargained him into agreeing to raise the top marginal tax rate, from 28% to 31%.

As of when Clinton came in, the (again) Democratic-majority Congress (both houses) insisted he keep in place the pay-go discipline, the hard caps on domestic discretionary spending increases, and then Clinton advocated for and got passed with no Republican votes at all, the additional raising of the top bracket to 39.6%.

These effects were small at first, but compounding every year they remained in place, ultimately began to amount to very large amounts of money that were kept from being spent, and which were brought in.

It is foolish to attribute these out year results to the GOP majority Congresses, except in as much as they kept the same policies (they had not authored and opposed when they were suggested) in place that were there when they came into power.

When did the pay-go, go (out of policy), and when did the hard caps on discretionary spending go (out of policy)?

As of the W administration, who wasn't interested to keep these in place given the projections of surpluses. Frankly, probably neither were the Democrats by that time (unfortunately joining their Republican brethren in this hot-to-spend mood). However, there is no record of W fighting this, trying to keep these disciplines in place, and when he and his party wanted their way, yes, the Democrats gave it to them, not over and against the opposition of W and the GOP, but with their whole-hearted agreement that these shouldn't be there anymore.

This is a slightly different version than your always better sounding versions, and it has the benefit of not being a childish claim that we can discern anything meaningful by looking at given year results, without understanding what came before them, to determine how those years got to be that way.

LWW

07-02-2011, 05:41 PM

We have always been at war with Eastasia, haven't we.

Charlotte is quite adept at denying reality, you and Snoopy take it a step farther and construct a completely different universe in which y'all live ... except that it exists only in your mind.

Soflasnapper

07-03-2011, 08:47 PM

Tell me what in the foregoing from me is false according to you, and we'll soon see who is in the alternative universe.

All those policies directly influenced government spending and attendant deficit results, and the most certainly were in place when we climbed out of 12-figure deficits.

By what theory do you think they did not have the impact they most certainly did? Please explain what DIFFERENT things the GOP majority controlled Congress did that made that difference, if what I say made the difference, didn't.

Your problem here is that we KNOW what worked, in the not so distant past. When we stopped doing it, all these problems occurred, reversing the good that was accomplished. It's tantamount to a death knell for your claims, and I imagine the cognitive dissonance is too much to bear. My sympathies, but butch up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [from Wiki] the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.</div></div>

The GOP wasn't in charge of Congress when this passed, and didn't provide enough votes to pass it. That was Clinton's lobbying effort, to get enough Democrats on board to pass it. The GOP did nothing afterwards about NAFTA-- that trade increase was cooked in the books by the passage of NAFTA, and its fuller implementation.

Lower marginal tax rates? Don't think that happened. To what do you refer by that one?

Cuts in the rate of spending growth? They were already capped, and pay-go prevented any new programs or tax cuts unless they were revenue neutral, well before the GOP came in. When they were elected in late '94, they had no impact on the budget until Oct. 1 of '95.

Cuts in the rate of growth of the welfare state? What were those based upon? As entitlements, those grew or fell based on set criteria, and naturally, as the longest expansion in US history continued, fewer and fewer people needed support from the welfare state. Those expenditures fell as a result of the economic growth fostered under the first two years of Clinton and the Democratic majority Congress.

LWW

07-05-2011, 04:38 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [from Wiki] the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.</div></div>

The GOP wasn't in charge of Congress when this passed, and didn't provide enough votes to pass it. That was Clinton's lobbying effort, to get enough Democrats on board to pass it. </div></div>

You are actually incapable of objectivity aren't you.

NAFTA was passed because of R support, was opposed by the democrooks in congress and was negotiated by Bush the Elder's regime ... which has never stopped the dembots from heaping praise upon their godking Billy Jeff.

He said that with a straight face?. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St.

Soflasnapper

07-10-2011, 08:37 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [from Wiki] the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.</div></div>

The GOP wasn't in charge of Congress when this passed, and didn't provide enough votes to pass it. That was Clinton's lobbying effort, to get enough Democrats on board to pass it. </div></div>

You are actually incapable of objectivity aren't you.

NAFTA was passed because of R support, was opposed by the democrooks in congress and was negotiated by Bush the Elder's regime ... which has never stopped the dembots from heaping praise upon their godking Billy Jeff. </div></div>

Objectivity is showing you the vote totals.

As the Democrats had majorities in both houses of Congress, the GOP could not pass this on their own, and the Democrats lined up four-square against it. Unless key committee chairman and the leaders of both houses of Congress allowed it to come to the floor for a vote, nobody could have passed it (as they could have kept it off the agenda). Back when, I remember the talk that it appeared NAFTA would fail, and that its failure would be on Clinton, for failing to bring along enough of the Democrats.

Well, despite the opposition of most Democrats, Clinton was able to sway ENOUGH to get these passed. He did NOT have enough to pass it fairly late in the game, and had to put on a full court press at the presidential lobbying level to get it done.

Sheesh, next you're going to claim Clinton was anti-free-trade. The Democratic caucuses WERE anti-free-trade, by majority. They DID oppose this, and by a wide margin, enough to defeat the bill, until Clinton stepped it up.

As that is the stone cold truth, it is also objective.

LWW

07-11-2011, 04:05 AM

I didn't say they voted for it.

I said they continue to heap praise on Clinton for it.

Soflasnapper

07-11-2011, 02:39 PM

If you think the Democrats representing farmers and union workers PRAISED Clinton for this, you are wrong. They COMPLAINED about it.

Take Dick Gephardt as a proxy for this claim.

True, the DLC types, the neo-liberals, mirror images of their neo-con brethren (many of whom started as neo-liberals), might have. But not the rank and file Democrats, no sir.

LWW

07-11-2011, 04:03 PM

Please pay attention to what I post.

I am immune to your Alinskyism.

Soflasnapper

07-13-2011, 01:51 PM

Dems do tout their pro-business credentials, out of self-defense, and out of wanting business campaign donations.

Leftists per se do neither, and proudly proclaim other interests ahead of business interests, which they disdain and demonize at every turn. It's inarguable, and you must agree.

The problem is you are amazingly profligate with whom you term 'the left' or 'leftists.'

Does Noam Chomsky laud Clinton's NAFTA passage? Does Barry Commoner, or Ralph Nader? Do union leaders? WHAT LEFTISTS DO THAT? That would be the moderate to conservative Democrats or neo-liberals, who are NOT. ON. THE. LEFT, except in some fevered imaginations such as your own.